[lit-ideas] Re: More on Bigoted Muslim Cab Drivers
- From: "Veronica Caley" <molleo1@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2010 20:17:26 -0500
Regarding CF and Lawrence's preference for them over Muslim extremists:
Or, they will set off bombs at the Olympics in Atlanta. Or, kill gynecologists
who perform abortions, legally, and sometimes on ten year olds. Or blow up the
abortion clinics and kill and maim employees. Or they will blow up the federal
building in Oklahoma City. Or, verbally attack and incite against a moderate
Protestant fundamentalist who urges caring for the unfortunate among us. On
TV, of course, for maximum impact. Or the Catholic Conference of Bishops
inserting themselves into government policy re reproductive rights of
non-Catholic women. I am not sure weighing degrees of evil is a good way to
think about these things. Which of course is best judged by the victims.
Veronica Caley
Milford, MI
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence Helm
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, November 27, 2010 6:56 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: More on Bigoted Muslim Cab Drivers
John,
I am largely in sympathy with what you say. I have spent hundreds of
infuriated hours arguing with Christian Fundamentalists. However there are
important differences between Christian and Muslim Fundamentalists. CF
(Christian Fundamentalists) may believe the rest of us are going to hell. MF
(Muslim Fundamentalists) will try to kill us to send us there. CF believe that
the genuine Christians are a remnant, small in number, who will be raptured
into heaven in the last days. MF believe that they will conquer the entire
world through a Jihad that was begun by Mohammad. CF witness to nonbelievers.
MF kill them.
Yes, if CF get a chance to influence laws they may close the local bowling
alley if they can, but the MF will throw acid in the face of women improperly
dressed. They will kill young girls who don't marry the men chosen for them.
They will stone women (if not men) caught in adultery. They will cut off the
hands of thieves. As annoying as they are, I prefer the CF.
Lawrence
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of John Wager
Sent: Saturday, November 27, 2010 3:36 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: More on Bigoted Muslim Cab Drivers
Lawrence Helm wrote:
The concept of tolerance permits us to practice any sort of belief we like as
long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of anyone else. When a Buddhist
immigrates into the U.S., he is not going to have a problem with this concept.
But a Fundamentalist Muslim will. He is going to immigrate knowing full well
that he is going to violate the concept of toleration. He is going to infringe
on the rights of others and he knows it.
Bear in mind that we are talking about "Fundamentalist" Muslims.
I suspect that the most important word in the above is not "Muslim" but
"fundamentalist." My personal experience with fundamentalism came from the
local Baptists, not the local Muslims, but it was probably very similar. Any
position that requires non-believers (or believers in another tradition) being
bound by the revealed truths of the "fundamentalist" believers is basically the
same, whether it's Muslims asking for sharia mediators or Baptists closing the
local bowling alley because people under 21 were caught playing pool there.
(The laws of Starke, Florida, were mostly written by the 3,000 or so Baptists
in the town of 3,200.)
Karen Armstrong's book The Battle for God: Fundamentalism in Judaism,
Christianity and Islam does a good job of identifying the common threads of
fundamentalism in Judaism, Christianity and Islam. She's not trying to make a
political point in her analysis, really, so it's a good starting point at
understanding beyond polemics.
On a more political point, the main problem with all kinds of
"fundamentalisms" is that they seem to require everyone to subscribe to a
system of beliefs that everyone in fact do not subscribe to. If 100% of a
population believed in Islam, it might be quite democratic to make law entirely
based on the Qu'ran. But if even a few citizens do not subscribe to that
system of beliefs, until they do, the foundation for law should be some system
that does not require their buying into that religion. Take your pick here:
contract theory, or human nature, or some other justification for government,
but the result is the same: There should always be a provision in law so that
non-believers in a system of belief are not required by law to act as if they
do.
Buddhism isn't very conducive to fundamentalism, but the three traditions of
Islam, Christianity and Judaism all seem to be much more prone to succumbing to
the false inclusiveness of law over belief. This is really a very astounding
position, when you think about it, because the whole idea of "revealed" truth
present in these three traditions says that God has revealed in a special way
to only some people certain fundamental truths or duties. If fundamentalists
really took revelation seriously, they would not want those to whom God has not
(yet) revealed these truths to be held accountable for them, yet time and again
these fundamentalists violate their own concept of "revelation" rather than
practice the tolerance that such a conception of revelation would require.
Other related posts:
